Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31514607›Full record

ArticleJournal of interpersonal violence2019

Ecological Research for Studies of Violence: A Methodological Guide.

April M Zeoli, Jennifer K Paruk, Jesenia M Pizarro, Jason Goldstick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interpersonal violence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Effect of Periodic Vehicle Inspection on Road Crashes and Injuries: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

April M ZeoliMichigan State University, East Lansing, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9084-1721
Jennifer K ParukMichigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
Jesenia M PizarroArizona State University, Phoenix, USA.
Jason GoldstickUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, USA.

Funding

NCIPC CDC HHS R49 CE003085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological research is important to the study of violence in communities. The phrases "ecological research" and "ecologic study" describe those research studies that use grouped or geographic units of analysis, such as zip codes, cities, or states. This type of research allows for the investigation of group-level effects and can be inexpensive and relatively quick to conduct if the researcher uses existing data. And, importantly, ecological studies are an efficient means for hypothesis generation prior to, and can be used to justify, costlier individual-level studies. Ecological research designs may be employed to study violence outcomes when the research question is at the population level, either for theoretical reasons, or when an exposure or intervention is at the population level, or when individual-level studies are not feasible; however, ecological research results must not be used to make individual-level inferences. This article will discuss reasons to conduct ecological-level research, guidelines for choosing the ecological unit of analysis, frequently used research designs, common limitations of ecological research, including the ecological fallacy, and issues to consider when using existing data.

Indexed as

Residence CharacteristicsViolenceBiasGuidelines as TopicHumansPolicy MakingResearch Designcommunityecological fallacyecological researchobservational studypolicy analysisresearch design

Identifiers

PMID31514607
PMCPMC9983882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.